Yeah. I’m from Hungary, a country that uses civil law, and you can literally read the whole civil code or penal code so you exactly know what you can do. In the case of the penal code, you can read what is the penalty for doing that crime.
@@justaguy9224 but it's about development. Common law is common. As in, of the people. It's not dictated, it's how people behave, and develop over time. It's also almost impossible for the government to impose itself over.
@curiositycloset2359 How is it "by the people"? In reality judges in common law countries often interpret laws (which were passed by a democratically elected parliament) in a completely different way than the parliament intended it to be interpreted, just because some other judge has once decided that this certain law has this certain meaning. It's almost as if the judicial branch takes over a big part of the responsibilities of the legislative branch. If you take this combined with the fact that most judges are appointed and not directly elected by the people, one could argue that the judicial branch in common law countries weakens the influence the people have on how laws are applied therefore decreasing the power of the people.
@@BatMan-fg8kc law used to be an institution. It has been corrupted as of late, by politics. But it's a sound system, especially when they have authority equal to the legislature.
Just for clarification the US legal system basically uses both civil and common law. For accidents like the one in the video there are tort laws that give specific elements that need to be met to win. This is just like civil law in other countries. You can use other cases to help your case but the legal elements from the statute must apply first. However, if there is a constitutional issue we almost use common law exclusively.
Yeah, pure common law is used in the UK. In America law has started to be codified in the recent decades, more and more stuff is regulated in acts and codexes, so that it starts to look like civil law more and more. In Britain, it's the same, but I think it is a bit less and slower. But all in all Common Law is in decline in the world, because nations relying on it have understood the benefits of having clear acts and codexes which are abstract and generally useable and applicable instead of having huge fat books of thousands of cases to find the law in a particular situation. But... There are things from Common Law that Civil Law abiding countries are looking into as well. For example, jury trials are a thing that the EU wants to implement in consumer rights issues in the future and the EU has also implemented a directive on class actions in consumer issues as well. Class actions were used to be unacceptable in civil law procedure theory. Bottom line your video greatly depicts the pure version of the both, but, it fails to recognize that in recent years things are starting to get quite miexed up.
It's important to clarify that despite the increasing codification of laws in the U.S., this does not signal a shift to a civil law system. The U.S. remains fundamentally rooted in the common law tradition. Codification here is an evolution within our common law framework, where statutes are not standalone but interpreted through the lens of judicial precedents. The essence of common law, where legal principles are developed through court decisions, is still very active. Even with more statutes, how courts interpret these laws, using past rulings as guides, showcases the ongoing dominance of common law methods. This differs significantly from a pure civil law system, which relies more directly on detailed codes and less on case-derived interpretations. Furthermore, the idea that common law is in global decline is an oversimplification. Many common law jurisdictions are expanding their statutory frameworks to meet modern legal needs, aiming for clarity and predictability. This adaptation doesn't equate to abandoning common law but enhancing it with statutory precision while retaining interpretative flexibility through courts. Lastly, the borrowing of common law elements like jury trials by civil law countries does not imply a blending of systems but a selective incorporation of beneficial practices. In essence, the U.S. legal structure continues to rely heavily on the interplay between statutes and judicial interpretations, characteristic of common law, not a transition towards a civil law system. This approach provides a blend of clarity and flexibility, crucial for addressing contemporary legal challenges.
@@longiusaescius2537 While the U.S. legal system has notable strengths, it's not without its flaws, one of which is the growing politicization of its judiciary. This issue manifests in the appointment processes and the perceived influence of political beliefs on legal decisions, potentially undermining the impartiality and independence that are foundational to any judicial system. Contrast this with the UK's legal system, which is underpinned by centuries of case law. This history contributes to a stable and predictable legal environment, essential for upholding the rule of law. Additionally, the UK benefits from a symbolic separation of powers that includes the Monarch. While largely ceremonial, this role adds a layer to the structure, symbolizing the ultimate sovereignty of law and justice, standing above direct political influence. The UK's judicial system features a division that includes the Monarchy, the Legislative (Parliament), the Executive (government), and the Judiciary. This contrasts with the U.S. system, which primarily consists of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. The UK's additional division helps mitigate direct political influences on the judiciary, providing a buffer that can protect against the politicization that is more evident in the U.S. These points suggest that while no legal system is flawless, the structural nuances and historical depth of the UK's system offer significant benefits in maintaining judicial independence and limiting political influence over legal decisions.
Judges in Common Law can also use "overruling" if they want to deviate from an earlier binding decision. In that case, the judge basically rules that the ruling and/or the reasons for the ruling are wrong because of reasons he must explain and build his decision upon. One of the reasons for overruling is if you think that society and rules within it have changed throughout the course of time so much, that upholding the precedent is no longer acceptable due to those changes. This refers to the idea that the law is living and changes and adapts through time to the society, who is also evolving.
In common law systems, judges can indeed overrule previous decisions if they believe those decisions are no longer appropriate due to changes in society or other significant reasons. This process is closely tied to the doctrine of stare decisis, which means "to stand by things decided". Overruling allows the law to evolve and adapt to new societal norms and values, reflecting the idea that the law is a living entity. This flexibility ensures that legal principles remain relevant and just over time.
I think the civil law requires more critical thinking and takes time. But in common law decisions are fast which are essential for country like india with so much cases pending and also population.
@@ravi.k.t Bro you are wrong, in common law countries decisions are not taken fast, it is opposite of that. As the judges have to consider the past judgements and currently implementing provisions and lastly the arguments forwarded by both the parties. Because of the analysis of all these factors the decision taking process is very slow and we see all the time SC resetting their past precedents. And at the same time judges in India tend to give lengthy judgements like 1200 pages in the Ayodhya case.
@@ravi.k.tcivil law is very simple and straightforward. How does it take much time? Law is already codified in Civil system. Common law takes time because it looks towards what is common -a precedent and evolves because of this it is very dynamic.
Also important to mention is that no legal system in the world is pure civil law or common law. There's pretty much always some sort of intermingling going on. Germany's legal system for example is mostly civil law but also has some common law elements, like the possibility to deviate from codified law if the general rule fails to produce an equitable result in an individual case (the instrument of equity or "Billigkeit" in German).
While systems may lean predominantly toward one tradition (civil or common law), they incorporate elements from others to address specific gaps or complexities. Globalization, historical exchanges, and practical needs often lead to cross-pollination between systems. Civil law systems, despite being rooted in codification and Roman law principles, often incorporate mechanisms and practices associated with common law. Germany as an Example: - "Billigkeit" (Equity): German courts can deviate from strict codified rules if applying them would result in inequity in a particular case (e.g., §§ 242 and 315 of the German Civil Code, which emphasize principles like good faith and fairness). - Judicial Precedents: While not binding like in common law, German courts often refer to higher court decisions, especially those from the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), to ensure consistency. - Flexible Interpretation: Courts interpret codified laws with considerable discretion, sometimes drawing on common law principles like balancing interests in tort and contract law. France: - Case Law Influence: Although France follows a codified system, court rulings, particularly from the Cour de Cassation and Conseil d'État, carry significant persuasive weight. - Equity: French courts also apply concepts of equity (équité) in matters not strictly addressed by the Civil Code. Common law systems have adopted civil law principles, especially in areas where codification or statutory intervention offers clarity. United States: - Uniform Commercial Code (UCC): A codified framework governing commercial transactions, inspired by civil law traditions. - Restatements of Law: While not binding, these provide systematic summaries of case law, echoing the codification approach of civil law. - Equitable Doctrines: Many U.S. courts apply equitable principles, such as estoppel and unjust enrichment, which align with Roman law-inspired notions of fairness. England: - EU Influence: Membership in the European Union introduced many civil law principles, particularly in areas like consumer protection and competition law. - Codification in Specific Areas: Acts like the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 represent codified interventions. Scotland: - A mixed system combining Roman law-inspired civil law with English common law influences. - Codified rules coexist with case law traditions. Quebec, Canada: - Operates under a civil law system for private matters, derived from the French Civil Code, while public law is influenced by common law. South Africa: - Blends Roman-Dutch law, English common law, customary law, and religious law. The intermingling of civil and common law traditions reflects the adaptability and pragmatism of legal systems. While systems like Germany’s civil law incorporate equity for fairness, common law jurisdictions increasingly rely on codification for predictability and clarity. This blending ensures that legal systems remain dynamic, meeting the evolving needs of their societies while respecting their historical roots.
I am from Germany. And maybe I am not objective but I think the Civil law is much better. What happens if there is no case like mine before? And what is if the decision in the case before was just wrong, would they decide wrong everytime again just because the first judge in this type of cases judged like he judged. I think this is not really clever. I think its much better to decide from case to case because every case is different. And its important that there are rules we can use in our court.
It's an utterly moronic system. It's from a time you could also settle your quarrels with a duel to the death. The whole system is based around the concept of "winners" and "losers" rather than justice. Just watch "Making a Murderer" is you want to see how insane the Common Law system is.
The reality is exact opposite tho. It's the codes that often fail to account for rare cases while looking up similiar cases in the past, although time consuming, covers a lot more ground i.e. possibilities. If the decisions made before were just as wrong, they will be overturned. Just like roe vs wade was overturned. Common law doesn't adhere past decisions at all costs, more like it tries to make past and present and I'd even say future consistent and coherent.
But roe v wade and the catastrophic affirmative action ruling are prime examples why common law is deeply flawed and for that reason almost the entire world is avoiding it. Long live civil law!
Civil law makes sure that legislators decide what the law looks like and leaves judges less room for interpretation and all kinds of speculations that are prevalent in common law countries.
Wow, whatever flaws the Civil Law system might have, the Common Law system sounds like pure insanity. It's like the difference between studying a mathematical equation versus listening to your drunk uncle. Looking up what happened to some peasant two hundreds of years ago and then going off of that because it's kinda-sorta similar sounds like the sort of thing that only maintains a veneer of respectability for being a storied tradition.
It doesn't always go that far back unfortunately as new cases always pop up, evolving. For this reason, common law in comparison is very flexible being both subjective and objective at the same time. Common law countries are usually a lot stable because of this. Civil law sometimes treats law as a science which it is not. The only other type of law are religious like Islamic (Revelationary) and Customary.
Well it's not pure insanity, it's actually an attempt to prevent pure insanity. Common law clearly has the benefit of much lower level of logical reasoning required by its judges, which allows a legal system to make do with a bunch of idiots, who otherwise would all make totally arbitrary insane judgements. Common law systems can even be easily established where there isn't even any codified laws to begin with, it just works itself out.
One small correction. Common law is practiced in 49 of the 50 United States. Louisiana practices civil law because of its history as a French colony. In this case, the common law doctrine is found on Justice Clarence Thomas' license plate. His license plate reads (or read when he visited my law school in 1996) Res Ipsa. That is short for Res Ipsa Loquitur or "the thing itself speaks." It is a way to hold someone liable for an accident without requiring the plaintiff to prove exactly how the defendant was negligent. This doctrine holds that if an accident, more likely than not, would not have happened without negligence and the defendant had control of the premises or the object that caused the accident, the defendant would be liable.
In Europe - in pure civil law - we would call the thing you described under Res Ipsa Loquitur in 2 ways. 1st, since it would be a way of being liable without the need to prove negligence or any other type of fault (like intent), we would say it's *objective liability.* Liability that does not require any kind of fault to be proven, but only the fact that damage has occurred, that it is within the bounds of the substance of objective liability (which mostly is specified by a code) and the nexus between the occurred damage and the conduct that falls within the scope of objective liability. 2nd for the latter part, where it says that if it was more likely than not to incorporate negligence, then this is sufficient to establish liability - such thing is called an *irrefutable legal presumption* - something that is by law regarded to be true/false even if it is highly unlikely that it is true, and even the proof of the presumption being wrong does not make its legal effect void. The basic Latin ignoratio iuris non excusat - not knowing the law does not excuse / not knowing the law is not for the benefit, is such an irrefutable legal presumption. Meaning, even if you were to prove that you didn't know all the codes that apply in a given situation, it can not be an excuse before the court of law.
@@rexi1414 In the United States, certain activities or situations confer "strict liability," in which it doesn't matter whether the defendant was negligent. Negligence is defined as the breach of a duty of care. But if, for instance, you are blasting on your property and that blasting causes damages to someone else property, you will be strictly liable even if you can prove you were as careful as humanly possible. But under Res Ipsa Loquitur, there is only a rebuttable presumption of liability. Even if a type of accident usually only occurs because of negligence, if you can prove it wasn't caused by negligence in the instant case, you can avoid liability. In the case in the video, if the department store could prove that a trespasser had thrown the tile off the roof (assuming it wasn't considered negligence not to have prevented the trespass) the store wouldn't be liable.
Louisiana indeed operates under a civil law system, which is unique among the U.S. states. This is due to its history as a French and Spanish colony before it became part of the United States. Louisiana's legal system is based on the Napoleonic Code, and in this state, statutes and codified laws are primary, with less emphasis on judicial precedents, which contrasts with the common law tradition that governs the other 49 states. The doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur is an excellent example of how common law principles are applied in the U.S. This doctrine allows a plaintiff to establish a presumption of negligence without having to prove the specific act of negligence. Essentially, if an accident is of the type that ordinarily would not occur without negligence and the defendant had exclusive control over whatever caused the accident, Res Ipsa Loquitur allows the court to infer negligence on the part of the defendant. In courts that follow common law principles, such as those in 49 states, Res Ipsa Loquitur shifts the burden to the defendant to prove that there was no negligence. The doctrine is especially useful in cases where the plaintiff may not have access to the specific facts surrounding the defendant's conduct, such as in medical malpractice cases or certain types of accidents. The reference to Justice Clarence Thomas’s license plate reading "Res Ipsa" underscores his awareness and perhaps his appreciation of the doctrine's significance in common law. It’s a witty nod to a foundational concept that’s well-known among legal professionals and law students.
@@ZdenekMicke69 I attended Washington & Lee Law School in Lexington, VA between 1995 and 1998. Lexington is a "city" with a permanent population of only 5,000 people. However, it does have two universities. In addition to W&L, it is also home to the Virginia Military Institute. VMI is a state school that was only open to men until 1997. In 1996, the Supreme Court ruled in a 7 - 1 decision that VMI had to allow women to enroll. Clarence Thomas did not participate in the case because his son was a cadet at the time. As I understood it, Justice Thomas' Corvette, with his Res Ipsa license plate, was often seen in Lexington while the Justice was visiting his son. Justice Thomas came to speak at W&L during my second year. His talk was sponsored by the Federalist Society. Being the president of the W&L chapter, I got to speak with him at the reception prior to his talk. At one point, he mentioned that with so little to do in Lexington, we must all do quite a lot of studying. I was reasonably sure that was meant to be a humorous statement because the one thing Lexington had no shortage of was alcohol. Students at the law school did quite a lot of drinking, though we were practically teetotalers in comparison to the undergraduates.
In France both are in use. Except common law is called "la jurice prudence". It is when the law in the first place fails to fairly judge the situation the case is taken, in a higher court and examined and is balanced if it is right or wrong. And if it is the fault of the defender it becomes a common law.
Above all, it is an unofficial source of law. Indeed, the judge will never explicitly base himself on a previous decision, as the French Civil Code forbids this (art. 5). A judge's decision cannot, therefore, settle the fate of a legal question in the future, and in principle applies only to the case judged. Nevertheless, it is the role of the supreme courts to standardize case law in order to avoid disparities between the judgments and rulings of lower courts in a given matter. For example, the solution adopted by the "Cour de cassation" (Supreme Criminal Court) in one case does not oblige appeal courts and tribunals to rule identically in similar cases. However, the fact remains that the rulings of the Cour de cassation, and particularly those published in the Bulletin des Arrêts, mark a trend that is generally followed by the lower courts to avoid a proliferation of appeals and, in particular, appeals to the Supreme Court. This is what we call "jurisprudence".
Unlike common law systems, where past judicial decisions can set binding precedents for future cases, jurisprudence in France serves as an influential but unofficial source of law. French judges are prohibited by Article 5 of the Civil Code from explicitly basing their decisions on previous rulings, meaning that each case is judged on its individual merits. While lower courts are not legally bound to follow the decisions of higher courts like the Cour de cassation (the Supreme Criminal Court), these rulings do play a significant role in guiding the decisions of lower courts. The trend set by the Cour de cassation is often followed to ensure consistency across the legal system and to reduce the number of appeals that could otherwise clog the judicial process. Even though jurisprudence does not have the binding authority it holds in common law systems, it still serves as a powerful force in shaping the interpretation and application of law. The practice of following the decisions of higher courts, particularly those published in the Bulletin des Arrêts, helps maintain a level of uniformity in the legal system. The use of jurisprudence also allows for the law to be interpreted in ways that can adapt to specific circumstances, particularly when the written law might not fully address the complexities of a case. This helps achieve a more equitable outcome, which is a central concern in any legal system. Jurisprudence in France represents a nuanced approach where past judicial decisions influence, but do not dictate, future rulings. This allows for flexibility and adaptability within the civil law system while maintaining a degree of consistency and fairness in the application of the law.
The Philippines uses a hybrid of civil and common law as a result of colonizations by both Spain and the United States. One region in Mindanao predominantly populated with Muslims adopted elements of Islamic law, especially family and financial law.
The civil law tradition in the Philippines primarily stems from its history as a Spanish colony (1521-1898). During this period, Spanish legal codes, based on the Napoleonic Code, were implemented, forming the foundation of many areas of Philippine law, particularly in matters like family law, property, and obligations. After the Spanish-American War, the Philippines became a U.S. territory (1898-1946). During this time, the American common law system significantly influenced the country's legal structure, particularly in areas like constitutional law, criminal law, and procedural rules. The U.S. model of judicial review and the doctrine of stare decisis (the principle of adhering to precedent) were also adopted. In the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), Islamic law, or Sharia, is applied in matters related to personal and family law, such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and certain financial transactions. The application of Sharia in these areas reflects the region's predominantly Muslim population and respects their religious and cultural practices. The Philippine legal system includes Sharia District and Circuit Courts that handle cases involving Muslim Filipinos, particularly in the areas where Islamic law is recognized. These courts operate alongside the regular court system and are integrated into the broader judicial framework of the country. The Philippine legal system is a fascinating hybrid, combining elements of civil law from Spain, common law from the United States, and Islamic law in certain regions. This combination reflects the country's diverse cultural and historical influences, creating a legal system that is both complex and adaptable to the needs of its varied population.
Common law system is more complicated and it has different sources of law such as common law rules, equity rules , customs , precedents. Even legal scholars and researchers face difficulty in their job as they have to derive the doctrines and principles from cases. Civil law system is more systematic and methodological which ease the way for judges to decide cases as there are codes which govern the cases.
Because it is precedent-based, the 'thinking' in common law decisions tends to be more consistent overall, without the abrupt reversals or changes in direction that can sometimes happen in French and German courts. Common law judgements tend to come through (or be dismissed) more quickly as well. This is why common law is generally regarded to be more business friendly, as companies can sue each other while having a good idea of what the outcome will be before they go to court (or, conversely, decide to arbitrate instead). All of the traditional global 'business hubs' are consequently common law locations: London, Hong Kong, New York, Singapore, etc. An additional benefit of common law is that it is more independent of the government, being a sequence of cases decided in a 'bottom-up' fashion by different court decisions. This is why it is generally associated with more democratic countries, whereas 'top-down' civil law has been more effectively used in authoritarian ones (the state or party chairman simply handing down new codes for judges to follow). Those common law countries which became more authoritarian after independence from Britain often chose to discard certain protections of the common law (e.g., Singapore abolishing jury trials in 1970), or move over to civil law entirely. Juries, specifically, are a great 'bottom-up' protection of the common people, because 12 'peers' (average citizens) are likely to acquit a defendant whom they feel is being condemned by a single judge who has been appointed (or bribed) by the government (this is fairly typical in countries with high levels of corruption). 12 individuals selected at random are far harder to 'buy out' than a single corrupt judge.
What you are saying may be true in general and from a global perspective, but I am Swedish and my country is not known for a dictatorial culture. Rather, our legal culture as pretty much the rest of our society is highly bureaucratic in the sense that law is mostly regarded as a "technique" rather than an art. The jury system is another feature of the common law which in some senses is different. I like that system and my country has a weird mixture of jury and jury-rule. I can also see clear disadvantages with the American jury system, but I would prefer to have your system of selecting a jury, combined with a mandatory legal education (say a month or two) of members of the jury. All membes should be recruited, trained and paid fo in advance. Having that said what I love about the common law system is the consistency of the legal rulings in civil cases.
@@darkmatter6714 the American legal system is still American in the national sense, although it originates from another country. Just like Roman law,, also known as the inquisitorial system, is used in various countries. Also, the English common law system is not based on a legislated constitution, while the American legal system is both based on a constitutuion as well as federalism. Also, the American legal system excluded all forms of rithgs and obligations fo a nobility and a monarch that didn't exist, while until recently, the British legal system did just that. Every legal system is unique in some form.
@@thabomuso2575 Not sure about rights for monarchs. Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law. It sought to prevent the king from exploiting his power, and placed limits of royal authority by establishing law as a power in itself. You have a copy of it in the Capitol as US values of freedoms and liberties were modelled after it. I wouldn’t call 1215 “recent”.
Civil law is better, because you can look it up, you can also look up cases, where the law was applied, so Civil Law has both, but it is more likely follow trends, which could not be said about the Common Law. For example in Germany, where the jewish rules were applied, it was much easier to adapt to those, then it would be in the US, where the precedents could not let something like that happen all of the sudden. At the end it all comes down to one thing: common sense and good will. If a german judge got those, he or she would not apply the jewish rules, or any rule, which was lacking the 2 mentioned above. So my point is civil law+common sense+good will is as close to perfection as law can get.
No, no, no. This description is nice but way oversimplified. First of all, civil law does indeed rely on legal precedents. Conversely, common law does rely on legislated legal text. Withou legal texts, the judges would effectively ""think up" law as they work with each case, and that would be as from a Kafka-novel. Written legal text increases exponentially every year, so the overall trend leans towards relying on that legal text more than the reasoning of judges. However, more legal text does not always simplify legal rulings. It often complicates the rulings and that is again, where we need the intelligence and prudence of judges to get fair rulings. What is also forgotten in this video presentation is that for a legal precedent to emerge, that precedent must first have been handled in lower courts. And those cases again, heavily rely on legal precedents. The real difference between civil law and common law, is that in many cases, civil law systems, legal precedents may often be strong, but surely not as strong and absolutely binding as in common law countries. Furthermore, common law systems in most legal cases rely a lot more on the legal reasonings of the judges based on legal principles and philosophies dating back to the Roman Empire. In civil law countries, the legal reasonings rely a lot more on what is found in the written legislated law and what is not written there. The attempts of the judges to "fill in the legal blank spaces", so to speak, are mostly fewer. In my opinion and I work with law in a civil law country, common law has historically been a superior system overall. In modern times, written legal text is increasingly the main source for legal reasoning but the common law system is still by far the superior method. After everything has been said and done, it is the human brain of an intelligent judge that has the best chance of making a fair ruling. Legal interpretation is an art, not a science, and not even artificial intelligence will chance that.
I am from europe and always found the US system strange. it seems you have the same right as someone else in the same case and the same right to compensation. could it be that the principle is inflating over time and the compensation for strange cases gets out of hand? to me everybody is yelling “i will sue you” and whants to get money out of the system. Is this because of the type of system or not?
I'm sorry but your interpretation is incorrect. Firstly, civil Common Law is about harms done to a person that are not crimes. Secondly, common law is an Adversarial code of law. There is always a Claimant who makes the claim of being harmed by another who they name and that other becomes the Defendant. Everyone has the right to make a claim or defend themselves against a claim as long as the law allows. In civil law, the claim is made to the court, and if accepted both the claimant and defendant appear before the court. The claimant pleads their claim with evidence supporting their claim, and the defendant defends themself, arguing against against the claims. And the Judge, sometimes in limited cases, with the assistance of a jury, decides the case. As we are talking about real life, de jure (legal) rights are not always de facto (in reality) rights. Why? Money and politics. The civil cases that come to the public attention are those that have very rich people or corporations suing each other. They have the money to afford lawyers and court fees. In reality, civil wrongs are common place occurrences that rarely see the courtroom. Most are settled before they go to trial. Or, never get into the system because claimants can't afford to pursue their claims. Or, administrative courts are created to process claims in bulk. And wealthy people or corporations have influence over legislators. The real difference between common law and civil law is about the source of legal rules for judges. Civil Law jurisdictions codify their all sources, whereas Common Law jurisdictions rely on codified and uncodified sources for the sources of legal rules. It is in flexibility and responsiveness to community needs this plays out. Civil Law needs the code to be updated to reflect changes, whereas Common Law jurisdictions can change on the fly as long as it doesn't subvert statute law, and there is a majority consensus that the change is justified.
European civil law system is THE Worst! Simple explanation, every pleading side is nominally under submission of Greater legal authority (codified under set of laws) so this is regulatory centred decision making. Justice depending solely of quality deciphering sometimes senseless and contradicting codes of law. This system sprung out of French reformation of civil rights, and I'm my opinion opened very wide space for oppression, wrong judging (targeted in someone's favor or others misfortune), shunt of any sense of justice on longer runs.
@@BigHenFor Common law's treatment of civil wrongs revolves around the concept of torts, where harm caused by one party to another is addressed through remedies, primarily monetary compensation. Examples include negligence, defamation, and trespass. As you correctly state, common law operates in an adversarial framework. A claimant initiates the process, the defendant responds, and both present evidence and arguments. The court (judge or jury) determines the outcome based on presented facts and legal principles. It’s true that litigation can be prohibitively expensive, limiting access to justice for many. Wealthy individuals or corporations often dominate civil proceedings because they can afford the high costs of legal representation and court fees. A significant number of civil cases are resolved outside court through settlements or alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as arbitration or mediation. Administrative courts help handle bulk claims, but these are not a perfect solution. In civil law systems, claims are also made to the court. However, the emphasis lies on interpreting codified rules that are designed to cover a broad range of potential disputes. Judges have less discretion compared to their common law counterparts. Civil law jurisdictions often adopt an inquisitorial system, where the judge takes a more active role in investigating facts and applying the law. This contrasts with the adversarial nature of common law. Codified procedures and reliance on written submissions in civil law systems can sometimes make legal processes more predictable and less costly, although they, too, face issues of inequality and access. Both common law and civil law systems aim to deliver justice, but they do so in distinct ways based on their historical and philosophical foundations. The common law system’s flexibility allows it to adapt quickly to changing societal contexts, but this can come at the cost of predictability and accessibility. Conversely, civil law provides clarity through codification but may lack the agility to address rapid changes without legislative intervention. The interplay between codified stability and judicial flexibility remains a central theme in understanding the strengths and limitations of these systems. Each faces challenges in ensuring equitable access to justice, especially in a world shaped by economic disparities and political influence.
explained case law, which is a part feature of common law .. now, I need to reconsider.. if these same issues happen to the other videos , which I like them.
Malaysia 🇲🇾 legal framework is based on UK legal systems of common law but incorporates Syariah laws for Muslims. There is also customary law in Borneo serving the natives. Indians and Chinese customary laws have been codified during reformation of Family and Marriage Act. Not an expert, just sharing.
Malaysia's legal system is rooted in the common law tradition, inherited from its time as a British colony. This influence is most evident in the country’s civil and criminal laws, as well as its judicial system. The principle of stare decisis (adherence to precedent) and the structure of the courts are modeled after the UK system. Syariah law is applicable to Muslims in Malaysia, particularly in matters of personal status, family law, and religious observances. Each state in Malaysia has its own Syariah courts that operate separately from the civil courts, handling issues like marriage, divorce, inheritance, and apostasy among Muslims. This creates a dual legal system where civil courts and Syariah courts coexist. However, Syariah courts have jurisdiction only over Muslims and specific matters, while the civil courts handle other areas of law. In the states of Sabah and Sarawak on the island of Borneo, customary laws play an important role in governing the indigenous peoples, or "natives." These customary laws are recognized and upheld in native courts, which handle matters such as land rights, inheritance, and local customs. Native customary rights are particularly significant in land disputes, where the ancestral land rights of indigenous communities are protected by these customary laws. Malaysia's reformation of the Family and Marriage Act involved codifying certain customary practices of the Indian and Chinese communities. These codifications ensure that cultural practices are respected within the legal framework, particularly in areas like marriage, divorce, and family obligations. For example, Hindu marriage customs and Chinese ancestral inheritance practices are recognized and have been integrated into the formal legal system to provide consistency and legal clarity. Malaysia's legal system is a multifaceted and inclusive framework that integrates common law principles with Syariah law for Muslims, customary laws for indigenous peoples in Borneo, and codified customary laws for its Indian and Chinese communities. This legal pluralism reflects Malaysia's diverse population and its efforts to respect and preserve the cultural and religious practices of its people within a unified legal structure.
According to the video, common law bases its decision on similar cases that occurred in the past. What if there are no cases similar to the case on hand; how would the judge handle it?
We have one law world wide. That's just don't hurt anyone all the rest are for the corporate system not the man or women. Bill of rights 1689 stands in perpetuity. We been programmed through a preponderance of sophistry from the people we trust to act for us! A corporate can not own land nor properties neither can they prejudice the people nor place fines fixtures or forfeiture. Only buy our tacit acquiescence.
I think there is some blending, and some jumps in explaining this because there finite things. common law in the court case, the judge mostly looks at if the presented claim has happened in the past, but it isn't like they actively go looking for it usually the prosecution or plaintiff will present that claim. part of this is why a judge under common law isn't required to actually know anything about the law itself. however, by being knowledgeable they can better render judgement and stop renegade trains of thought. the laws still have some codification, but the use of common law is mostly in the decision of Guilt and for the exacting of fines, fees, and punishment. in a civil case, usually, stare decisis is in the acutal court trial. for common law a civil court will be heard by a judge, who will render a summary judgement as apart of the process. summary judgements use stare decisis, however the primary use is in the latter part of the court at trial stage where information collected during discovery is examined and debated over. for the less informed this process is: >filing >answering, the complaint >discovery >motion >out of court resolution/summary judgement >trial >appeal (repeating the filing for a higher court). stare decisis is used in summary judgement and trial portions as the judge is deciding something. Providing that information prior can help the process, but isn't strictly necessary. as far as I know, in civil law, the judge acts partially as a lawyer as they must match a claim to a law after a clear intent has been provided. beyond this I don't know.
Judges often rely on precedents (past decisions) presented by the parties involved. While judges aren’t required to know every law, their legal knowledge helps them interpret and apply the law effectively. In civil cases, the process you outlined is accurate. Stare decisis is crucial during summary judgments and trials, ensuring consistency and predictability in legal decisions. In civil law systems, judges have a more active role in investigating the facts and applying the law. They often act as both fact-finders and legal experts, ensuring that the claim matches the relevant laws.
Yes, and it's not really used much in US as we've adopted an unconstitutional form of Statutory Law which subverts the will of the People and allows debt as money!
This is an oversimplification but it is still correct. Precedent is not irrelevant in civil law it’s just non binding. Depending on the civil law legal system the importance of precedent can vary.
Interesting and thanks. I am not a lawyer, but I have read that because of the odd history of the US there are mixtures in the various states, California has some of the Spanish legal system, Louisiana has some French legal system, and Massachusetts has Cannon Law (I think) mixed in. So the TV series, 'Boston Legal,' in reality is probably more complex than the on-screen behavior suggested. Isn't Harvard located in Boston?
California has elements of Spanish civil law due to its history as a Spanish colony. Louisiana is heavily influenced by French civil law, stemming from its time as a French territory. Massachusetts and other states have been influenced by various legal traditions, though Canon Law (church law) isn’t a primary influence in Massachusetts. As for Harvard University, it is indeed located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which is just across the Charles River from Boston. So, the legal complexities in a place like Boston would certainly be more intricate than what a TV show like “Boston Legal” might portray!
It's also a religious divide. Common Law countries tend tend to have religious foundations rooted in Protestantism and outside of UK largely in Calvinist traditions, although England and Ireland are both high church they are common law, England has a High Church Anglicanism, and Ireland has High Church Roman Catholicism, they still have been influenced by Calvinist originated Protestantism. However due to the influences of High Church religions, they still have influences of Community based solutions i.e. Social Safety nets. However most other areas have Calvinist traditions, whereas Civil Law (Mainland Europe and Latin America) countries tend to have ones rooted in Catholicism. In the case of the Protestant areas of the mainland they tend to be high church such as Lutherans so very close to Catholics in their worldview of communal Laws i.e. Sweden, Germany, many also have Catholic populations such as Calvinist Nethetlands or Switzerland having large influential Catholic areas, and/or are 50/50 Lutheran/Catholic Germany, Calvinist/Catholic Netherlands, Switzerland, etc. , and since it's easier to have one law, Civil Law become the precedent regardless of other tendencies. Islands like the British Isles allowed more spread of Common Law and colonial areas outside of Quebec, Louisiana, and Latin America, were largely opened up to new settlers with Low Church Protestantism. We see this even in North America, English speaking Canada, and USA have full Common Law, whereas Quebec, Louisiana, and Mexico have influences of Civil Law or Full Civil Law. Again the safety net of most Commonwealth areas is due to Anglican, Catholic (Quebec), and Methodist influences that focus on societal duties. The individual and individuals are the basis in Common Law, whereas in Civil Law the society and polity is the basis. This also defines economics, the individualist tendencies lead to more Free Market economics, individual rights over community harmony/norms, and less social safety nets as duties fall on individuals rather than on society. Whereas for Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants like Lutherans, duties tend to be more focused on society as a solving agent, and thus societal duties is more the goal. Thus you see lots of Social Safety Nets in Lutheran and Roman Catholic nations. In Asia the already existing idea of Social Harmony and Cohesion, rooted in Confucianism, opened the the door to European Civil Law being modified and adopted. Such as Japan where German and French Civil Law was adopted and modified. All in all the religious foundational views of society influence the legal outlook even if they become secular. Overall The US, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, English speaking Canada, have had enormous influence from Calvinist thought, even if they have had comprises. The USA is the most Low Church Protestant oriented nation of the West, even if it has a large Roman Catholic and High Church Protestant population. The individual vs community responsibility issue is one rooted in Low Church vs High Church traditions in the West, or a compromise of the two tencendencies and hybrid. Again the US is the most Low Church oriented Western country, largely due to it's early Puritan foundations.
Common Law: Originated in England and spread to its colonies. It relies heavily on judicial precedents and is prevalent in countries like the USA, Canada (excluding Quebec), Australia, and New Zealand. Civil Law: Rooted in Roman law and prevalent in continental Europe and Latin America. It is codified and relies more on written statutes than judicial decisions. Protestantism: Particularly Calvinist traditions, have influenced Common Law countries, emphasizing individual responsibility and free-market economics. Catholicism and High Church Protestantism: These traditions, prevalent in Civil Law countries, emphasize community responsibility and social safety nets. Europe: Civil Law dominates, with countries like Germany and Sweden having strong Lutheran influences, while others like France and Italy are predominantly Catholic. North America: The USA and English-speaking Canada follow Common Law, while Quebec and Louisiana have Civil Law influences. Asia: Countries like Japan have adopted and modified European Civil Law, integrating it with local traditions of social harmony rooted in Confucianism.
Indonesia use civil law and they are get confused with too much regulations. Some of them wonder to have a common law. unfortunately, it looks complicated too.
In the post-capitalist, corporatism, oligarchic societies that we live in, it doesn't really matter in the end. As long as there are people that are above the law, Democracy can't function and the Rule of law affects only the common folk.
A canon of civil law must cover a whole lot of ground if the judge is to find an answer there. Essentially, they would have to have a law, rule or regulation for EVERYTHING.in order to find an answer to the legal challenge. The decision can have variable outcomes because of how a particular judge views that canon. In common law, the judge must FIRST consider what violation of law, rule or regulation potentially took place. Then precedents apply. However, we may not have a precedent or the precedent may have been annulled by later high court decisions. Then, the judge would have to turn to the plain reading of the law and what mischief the law was intended to address. Finally, the judge may ignore the past precedent based on the individual case and set a new precedent. Good example was overturning Roe v Wade... Our Founders knew about this when they settled on our system (US)...
> The decision can have variable outcomes because of how a particular judge views that canon. Sure. The losing party then can then usually appeal to next higher court. There is a lot of standing precedent in the continental system as well, except that you are not bound by decisions not in your hierarchy. Judges and attorneys of course can and do take inspirations from other cases, but unless some higher level has settled the matter, the judge can rely on their own best judgement. And it's really easy to cover everything in civil law: Adult people can make contracts, which have to then be followed. That covers most everything. Of course there are then protective clauses, like when an expert sells to a lay person or when you sell online. There are also default clauses meaning if certain things are not explicitly covered in the contract that is how it's done. The case in the example is a case of negligence. They cite Art 838 BGB, which is rather specific, because the defendent is not the owner of property, but the tenant. This is another case of specialization in the BGB. I'm sure you can guess at the general one for negligence. And I'd say overturning Roe vs Wade is an horrific example, except that this is more a failure of the legislative that was unwilling or unable to make a law.
You forget the civil law system has jurisprudence which are the interpretations of the supreme court to specific cases and then you have protection law (similar to habeas corpus) where you can sue against the sentence of a judge who did not consider such interpretations to a particular case or violated the constitution or human rights.
I don't think that you should be asking US which one is better. most of us haven't studied law or history well enough to have an educated enough opinion on the matter. the strengths and flaws of both of these systems may not be apparent on first glance. does any of these systems affect political corruption with any way? the civil law sounds like a receipe for corruption since there are essentially multyple laws that people need to be aware of.
I laugh where they say that they have no jurisdiction, and brushes it off on another, then brush it off to lawyers, j7st to justify that it's not a state matter, but a federal matter, but then states it's a civil matter. Federal government seashell games the big government plays and lies.
Сіз көшеде дүкенге бару үшін келе жатырсыз, кенеттен басыңызға бір шатырдың тақтайшасы түседі. “Бұл нені білдіреді?” - деп өзіңізден сұрайсыз және тақтайшасы құлаған сауда үйіне кіріп, шағымдануға барасыз. Сауда үйінің иесі сіздің басыңызға түскен бақытсыздыққа қызығушылық танытпайды да, бұл қалай болғанын түсіндіре алмайтынын айтады. Әрине, сіз де сол тақтайшаның дәл басыңызға қалай түскенін білмейсіз - бірақ… 0:34 Сізде миыңыз шайқалған соң, адвокатқа барып, сотқа шағым түсіресіз. 0:41 Одан кейін не болатыны - бұл оқиғаның Азаматтық құқық қолданылатын елде ме, әлде Жалпы құқық қолданылатын елде ме болғанына байланысты. 0:49 Өзіңіз тұратын елде қай құқық жүйесі қолданылады, білесіз бе? Континенттік еуропалық құқықтық жүйе 0:57 Айталық, бұл жағдай сізге Германияда болды, ол ел Континенттік құқықтық жүйеге жатады. 1:06 Судья сіздің ісіңізді қалай бағалайды? 1:10 Ол сіздің ісіңізге сәйкес келетін заң нормасын іздейді. 1:14 Германияның Азаматтық кодексінде, 838-бапта, ғимарат иесі құрылымды сақтау керек екені және ғимараттың бөлшектері құлағанда келтірілген зиянға жауапты екені туралы жалпы ереже бар. 1:20 Судья заңды қарайды. 1:25 Ол айыпталушының шынымен де ғимарат иесі екендігін, заң бойынша ғимаратты сақтауға міндетті екенін және оның абайсыздық танытқанын тексереді 1:40 Егер барлық заңдық талаптар орындалса, сауда үйінің иесі жауапкершілік көтереді, ал 1:46 сіз, яғни заңдық іс қозғаған талапкер, болған оқиғадан туындаған зиян үшін өтемақы аласыз. Ағылшын-американдық құқық жүйесі 1:55 Егер сіз өз серуеніңізді Америка Құрама Штаттарында жасасаңыз, онда ол Ағылшын-американдық құқық жүйесіне жататын Жалпы құқық жүйесі, судья басқа түрде әрекет етеді. 2:06 АҚШ-та судья орнына ұқсас істі іздейді - мысалы, ағылшын
Both systems are terrible. Civil Law requires a specific or at least abstract law to determine the case, but it means that if something doesn't have a clear prevision then a judge might make far stretches to cover the law. Meanwhile the Common Law goes based on what was decided on in the past, which becomes a problem with certain laws, where essentially because precedence wasn't set, now you can't set precedence because you need precedence to rule that way. A catch 22 if you would. A mixture of both could work. Where you initially check Civil Law, then you check the Common Law. And if they are opposed, then you go based on which is more clear about the ruling for this type of situation. For example, if the law says "In an Accident where DUI's are issued, then the driver must pay for the damages they inflict" then one could argue someone swerving out of the way of a drunk driver is responsible for the damages they caused. But if there is a case which sets the precedent "If a driver swerves in an attempt to protect themselves or others and the other driver is at fault, then the at fault driver will pay for any damages related the the person who swerved" then the case would override the precedent of the law, as the case directly addresses the issue, while the law would only broadly cover the concepts for the case. Of course that legal system would require a lot of fine tuning, and determining when whether Laws and Past judgements would get picked over the other. So I could see this as being hard to implement.
Oh my gosh, you know I had travel miles just to get help, which took weeks but the task was a pain in a half, iowa is so stupid, our own police don't care about our health or others who cause issue, even child abuse is ignored, the land lords get away with half of faults which if your a tenant is not protected from their bad job of keeping units safe, my own freezing, unless I report it which take forever after the hurt, I pay my rent and they come without notice and hurts me and my animals which are service animals, in which was neglected, the only law is arresting someone no other protection, so stupid!! So if I am kicked out the usually times of these is 30 to 60 days, take that with this and a court hearing after I am homeless is horrible, I reported to the city of such acts and argue about two years of not sleeping due to these and other issues and it takes more then a simply sheet compare to travel and etc, I said if these are not done to the city on their fault then court is final if not agree abound the actions from this and thats how it goes, iowa legal aide suck too since I had ask for help on such things.
Why can't we do both? There is a way of doing jurisdiction that analyses the concrete case and applies the mentioned subsumption together with the comparison of previous similar cases, forming a jurisprudence. That's a way to provide a more stable system of justice. Of course, doing that in a big country like mine (Brazil) is far from easy. But considering the complexity that involves the variety of people and circumstances here, it is a suitable way to achieve a judicial provision.
In the Philippines, we follow both the civil law ( Civil Code if the Philippines) and the doctrine of stare decisis( jurisprudence) in the application of laws.
I live in U.S. so we have Common Law. I don't always agree with this type of law because I know that every situation has its differences. I do NOT believe in this D.I.E. ( D.E.I. to those who adhere, thinking themselves god-like!), so I don't believe that ANY justice should be determined by inclusion of skin color, gender ( unless it's an obvious case of male physical dominant violence), sexual orientation, or ethnicity. If you are a biological, adult human, then the same rules apply. So, to this I would say that Civil Law seems very basic and identifiable. Variables might apply but they have to apply within the legal structure established.
common law is better in the demonstrated case.. you don't need to prove the defends negligence. like the way the civil do,if it means so, which requires a tones of papers stored, checked, and verified.
Nation states ran by public servants could benefit from understanding the laws in which their predecessors wrote. The arrest of the Samourai wallet developer for illicit funds and money laundering appears to be nothing more than an attack on Bitcoin itself, as the software developer has nothing to do with how Bitcoin users choose to use their software. This action raises concerns about the potential for governments to target developers of cryptocurrency software under the guise of combating illicit activities. It's important to recognize that software developers are not responsible for how users choose to utilize their software, and holding them accountable for the actions of users sets a dangerous precedent for technology development and innovation. Rather than targeting developers, efforts should focus on educating users about legal and ethical practices when using cryptocurrencies and ensuring that regulations are fair and proportionate. This incident underscores the need for greater clarity and fairness in the regulation of cryptocurrencies to protect both developers and users.
But... I think this skips over how a Common Law system incorporates (or fails to) new laws passed by the government - which inherently based on generalities, like Civil Law. Or is it a case that all 'Common Law' systems are actually hybrid Common/Civil Law systems?
Why can't freedom of speech allow us to be vocal in a court of law. Is our Judiciary still in the dark middle ages? 1) Why should we all rise when the Judge enters? 2) Why are we not allowed to speak out of turn? 3) Why can't we raise our voice against the judiciary? 4) Why can't we use verbal profanities against a judge/lawyer in a court of law? Even if there are laws against this, why should we follow them? Shouldn't it be a personal choice? 5) Are these laws out-dated? 6) Can we have these rules thrown out? 7) Perjury should be allowed as a part of freedom of speech and considered as a form of personal expression. 8) Why can't we sue the judiciary? Isn't it unfair? 9) Why do our judiciary set an environment of intimidation. 10) People should enter a court of law without fear or the feeling of intimidation.
The common law explanation is soooo wrong. Common law is based on maxims of law, common law is customs and tradition. You are talking about case law, which is derived from statute cases (most of the time). With common law you don't need case law, only a first hand eye witness to an injury or breached explicit contract.
The "green" wins! It's the ancient Roman Rights based system, that is applied here in Italy. Our dense history has given the world the guidelines for modern Rights. This doesn't happen in "the Queen's" countries. But you decide 😂😂😂
then that is the time, judge to form a new case law, by assessing the cause the continuity of the consuqence, she get hit, to the action and responsibility of property owner.
Clearly there are problem with both. I'm watching this video because I'm outraged about some rich people having to pay their ex $73K in child support. Just because someone other judge started doing it means it's not common law. At the same time, Civil Law is just fruit cake where the Judge acts as investigator, which is clearly biased to the point of outrage. Civil Law is whatever the Judge wants to do. I've heard that it's better to have a predictable yet more unfair legal system than fair and unpredictable.
Nope... Common law is not about judging things off the past. It's simply based off two rules 1. Do whatever you agreed through a contract 2. Don't enforce things up on others, such as killing or stealing. This video is more anti American propaganda. "Civil" law is corrupt and designed to be complex so that the ruling class can continue to break common law.
Bull shit. In spain and in Russia where I both live, the experiences for a lawyer will cause your bankruptcy. Moreover, if the building belongs to an official, you will land yourself in jail and then prison. Better to ignore the incident and move on than to face charges and find yourself in debt of criminal charges or even police tortures. Especially in spain
Wrong assumption about deciding based on previous rulings because those rulings were made on proof of liability of one man damaging another man. Common or Natural or more correctly called God's Law determines if it was intentional vs if it was accidental. Intentional damages or harm is difficult to determine since it requires the reading the mind/intent of the man doing the damage/harm. If there is a claim that he didn't "intend" to damage or harm it's an accident and he must pay to return the property damaged to it's original condition but in the case of a personal assault type of damage, the damaged party determines the form and amount of means to return to the original condition. If the two parties can't come to an agreement, it's up to a jury in a suit at law to determine. Statutory law is nothing more than business codes and regulations based on every imaginable scenario where one party can or does deny responsibility but still has to prove it. In God's Law a man is innocent until proven otherwise. Cops use statutes to deprive a man of his right to be innocent until proven guilty when he makes a claim against the man as simple of going over the posted speed for commercial vehicles to obey. A man, going to meet his fellow man for church is "assembling" which is his right from God and therefore can not be a statutory violation without breaking God's Law.
"No legal system can claim to be a servant of the people if it enables those who harm the people to conceal themselves under the cover of the law and receive advantages that harm the people." - Dr. Hans Frank, "The Impact of National Socialist Thinking on the German Legal System" (1934)
Simple answer; we do not live in a legal society, there is no rule of law. If someone from another country hurts you, and they are a diplomat.... they always get off for free no charge, no crime at all... that is THE LAW!!! THEY ARE THE LAW!!!!
South Africa has a mixed legal system - a hybrid of Roman Dutch civilian law, English common law, customary law and religious personal law.
Interesting.
@@jonathanm9436 yes
@Fuk U is it
You have laws??????fuud
@Fuk U all the politicians in sa are in favour of capitalism. That old era is gone
This 5 minute video taught me more than a 2 hour lecture
EXACTLY...
As presented civil law has an advantage in that it is easier to look up the law. Case law is very hard to look up.
Yeah. I’m from Hungary, a country that uses civil law, and you can literally read the whole civil code or penal code so you exactly know what you can do. In the case of the penal code, you can read what is the penalty for doing that crime.
@@justaguy9224 but it's about development. Common law is common. As in, of the people. It's not dictated, it's how people behave, and develop over time.
It's also almost impossible for the government to impose itself over.
@curiositycloset2359 How is it "by the people"? In reality judges in common law countries often interpret laws (which were passed by a democratically elected parliament) in a completely different way than the parliament intended it to be interpreted, just because some other judge has once decided that this certain law has this certain meaning. It's almost as if the judicial branch takes over a big part of the responsibilities of the legislative branch.
If you take this combined with the fact that most judges are appointed and not directly elected by the people, one could argue that the judicial branch in common law countries weakens the influence the people have on how laws are applied therefore decreasing the power of the people.
@@BatMan-fg8kc law used to be an institution. It has been corrupted as of late, by politics. But it's a sound system, especially when they have authority equal to the legislature.
@@BatMan-fg8kc is the house of commons "The people"? Point being, perhaps we need new legistra, as new elites tend to emerge
Just for clarification the US legal system basically uses both civil and common law. For accidents like the one in the video there are tort laws that give specific elements that need to be met to win. This is just like civil law in other countries. You can use other cases to help your case but the legal elements from the statute must apply first. However, if there is a constitutional issue we almost use common law exclusively.
Thanks for clarifying this
@LegaleseLiteracy would you say our mix is the best system?
Yeah, pure common law is used in the UK. In America law has started to be codified in the recent decades, more and more stuff is regulated in acts and codexes, so that it starts to look like civil law more and more. In Britain, it's the same, but I think it is a bit less and slower. But all in all Common Law is in decline in the world, because nations relying on it have understood the benefits of having clear acts and codexes which are abstract and generally useable and applicable instead of having huge fat books of thousands of cases to find the law in a particular situation. But... There are things from Common Law that Civil Law abiding countries are looking into as well. For example, jury trials are a thing that the EU wants to implement in consumer rights issues in the future and the EU has also implemented a directive on class actions in consumer issues as well. Class actions were used to be unacceptable in civil law procedure theory.
Bottom line your video greatly depicts the pure version of the both, but, it fails to recognize that in recent years things are starting to get quite miexed up.
It's important to clarify that despite the increasing codification of laws in the U.S., this does not signal a shift to a civil law system. The U.S. remains fundamentally rooted in the common law tradition. Codification here is an evolution within our common law framework, where statutes are not standalone but interpreted through the lens of judicial precedents.
The essence of common law, where legal principles are developed through court decisions, is still very active. Even with more statutes, how courts interpret these laws, using past rulings as guides, showcases the ongoing dominance of common law methods. This differs significantly from a pure civil law system, which relies more directly on detailed codes and less on case-derived interpretations.
Furthermore, the idea that common law is in global decline is an oversimplification. Many common law jurisdictions are expanding their statutory frameworks to meet modern legal needs, aiming for clarity and predictability. This adaptation doesn't equate to abandoning common law but enhancing it with statutory precision while retaining interpretative flexibility through courts.
Lastly, the borrowing of common law elements like jury trials by civil law countries does not imply a blending of systems but a selective incorporation of beneficial practices.
In essence, the U.S. legal structure continues to rely heavily on the interplay between statutes and judicial interpretations, characteristic of common law, not a transition towards a civil law system. This approach provides a blend of clarity and flexibility, crucial for addressing contemporary legal challenges.
@@longiusaescius2537 While the U.S. legal system has notable strengths, it's not without its flaws, one of which is the growing politicization of its judiciary. This issue manifests in the appointment processes and the perceived influence of political beliefs on legal decisions, potentially undermining the impartiality and independence that are foundational to any judicial system.
Contrast this with the UK's legal system, which is underpinned by centuries of case law. This history contributes to a stable and predictable legal environment, essential for upholding the rule of law. Additionally, the UK benefits from a symbolic separation of powers that includes the Monarch. While largely ceremonial, this role adds a layer to the structure, symbolizing the ultimate sovereignty of law and justice, standing above direct political influence.
The UK's judicial system features a division that includes the Monarchy, the Legislative (Parliament), the Executive (government), and the Judiciary. This contrasts with the U.S. system, which primarily consists of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. The UK's additional division helps mitigate direct political influences on the judiciary, providing a buffer that can protect against the politicization that is more evident in the U.S.
These points suggest that while no legal system is flawless, the structural nuances and historical depth of the UK's system offer significant benefits in maintaining judicial independence and limiting political influence over legal decisions.
Judges in Common Law can also use "overruling" if they want to deviate from an earlier binding decision. In that case, the judge basically rules that the ruling and/or the reasons for the ruling are wrong because of reasons he must explain and build his decision upon. One of the reasons for overruling is if you think that society and rules within it have changed throughout the course of time so much, that upholding the precedent is no longer acceptable due to those changes. This refers to the idea that the law is living and changes and adapts through time to the society, who is also evolving.
In common law systems, judges can indeed overrule previous decisions if they believe those decisions are no longer appropriate due to changes in society or other significant reasons. This process is closely tied to the doctrine of stare decisis, which means "to stand by things decided". Overruling allows the law to evolve and adapt to new societal norms and values, reflecting the idea that the law is a living entity. This flexibility ensures that legal principles remain relevant and just over time.
Here we in India follow mostly common law systems but there are instances where we get to witness civil law elements as well.
I think the civil law requires more critical thinking and takes time.
But in common law decisions are fast which are essential for country like india with so much cases pending and also population.
@@ravi.k.t Bro you are wrong, in common law countries decisions are not taken fast, it is opposite of that. As the judges have to consider the past judgements and currently implementing provisions and lastly the arguments forwarded by both the parties. Because of the analysis of all these factors the decision taking process is very slow and we see all the time SC resetting their past precedents. And at the same time judges in India tend to give lengthy judgements like 1200 pages in the Ayodhya case.
@@pranshuagarwal9297 well indian legal system in not pure common law.
It is a mixture of civil law; common law; customary law; religious law.
@@ravi.k.t Just like the South African!!🙂👍
@@ravi.k.tcivil law is very simple and straightforward. How does it take much time? Law is already codified in Civil system. Common law takes time because it looks towards what is common -a precedent and evolves because of this it is very dynamic.
Also important to mention is that no legal system in the world is pure civil law or common law. There's pretty much always some sort of intermingling going on. Germany's legal system for example is mostly civil law but also has some common law elements, like the possibility to deviate from codified law if the general rule fails to produce an equitable result in an individual case (the instrument of equity or "Billigkeit" in German).
While systems may lean predominantly toward one tradition (civil or common law), they incorporate elements from others to address specific gaps or complexities. Globalization, historical exchanges, and practical needs often lead to cross-pollination between systems.
Civil law systems, despite being rooted in codification and Roman law principles, often incorporate mechanisms and practices associated with common law.
Germany as an Example:
- "Billigkeit" (Equity): German courts can deviate from strict codified rules if applying them would result in inequity in a particular case (e.g., §§ 242 and 315 of the German Civil Code, which emphasize principles like good faith and fairness).
- Judicial Precedents: While not binding like in common law, German courts often refer to higher court decisions, especially those from the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), to ensure consistency.
- Flexible Interpretation: Courts interpret codified laws with considerable discretion, sometimes drawing on common law principles like balancing interests in tort and contract law.
France:
- Case Law Influence: Although France follows a codified system, court rulings, particularly from the Cour de Cassation and Conseil d'État, carry significant persuasive weight.
- Equity: French courts also apply concepts of equity (équité) in matters not strictly addressed by the Civil Code.
Common law systems have adopted civil law principles, especially in areas where codification or statutory intervention offers clarity.
United States:
- Uniform Commercial Code (UCC): A codified framework governing commercial transactions, inspired by civil law traditions.
- Restatements of Law: While not binding, these provide systematic summaries of case law, echoing the codification approach of civil law.
- Equitable Doctrines: Many U.S. courts apply equitable principles, such as estoppel and unjust enrichment, which align with Roman law-inspired notions of fairness.
England:
- EU Influence: Membership in the European Union introduced many civil law principles, particularly in areas like consumer protection and competition law.
- Codification in Specific Areas: Acts like the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 represent codified interventions.
Scotland:
- A mixed system combining Roman law-inspired civil law with English common law influences.
- Codified rules coexist with case law traditions.
Quebec, Canada:
- Operates under a civil law system for private matters, derived from the French Civil Code, while public law is influenced by common law.
South Africa:
- Blends Roman-Dutch law, English common law, customary law, and religious law.
The intermingling of civil and common law traditions reflects the adaptability and pragmatism of legal systems. While systems like Germany’s civil law incorporate equity for fairness, common law jurisdictions increasingly rely on codification for predictability and clarity. This blending ensures that legal systems remain dynamic, meeting the evolving needs of their societies while respecting their historical roots.
I am from Germany. And maybe I am not objective but I think the Civil law is much better. What happens if there is no case like mine before?
And what is if the decision in the case before was just wrong, would they decide wrong everytime again just because the first judge in this type of cases judged like he judged. I think this is not really clever. I think its much better to decide from case to case because every case is different. And its important that there are rules we can use in our court.
It's an utterly moronic system. It's from a time you could also settle your quarrels with a duel to the death. The whole system is based around the concept of "winners" and "losers" rather than justice. Just watch "Making a Murderer" is you want to see how insane the Common Law system is.
But, if the executive can control the judiciary, then civil law is open to tyranny.
Just saying
The reality is exact opposite tho. It's the codes that often fail to account for rare cases while looking up similiar cases in the past, although time consuming, covers a lot more ground i.e. possibilities.
If the decisions made before were just as wrong, they will be overturned. Just like roe vs wade was overturned. Common law doesn't adhere past decisions at all costs, more like it tries to make past and present and I'd even say future consistent and coherent.
But roe v wade and the catastrophic affirmative action ruling are prime examples why common law is deeply flawed and for that reason almost the entire world is avoiding it. Long live civil law!
Civil law makes sure that legislators decide what the law looks like and leaves judges less room for interpretation and all kinds of speculations that are prevalent in common law countries.
Wow, whatever flaws the Civil Law system might have, the Common Law system sounds like pure insanity. It's like the difference between studying a mathematical equation versus listening to your drunk uncle. Looking up what happened to some peasant two hundreds of years ago and then going off of that because it's kinda-sorta similar sounds like the sort of thing that only maintains a veneer of respectability for being a storied tradition.
It doesn't always go that far back unfortunately as new cases always pop up, evolving. For this reason, common law in comparison is very flexible being both subjective and objective at the same time. Common law countries are usually a lot stable because of this. Civil law sometimes treats law as a science which it is not. The only other type of law are religious like Islamic (Revelationary) and Customary.
Well it's not pure insanity, it's actually an attempt to prevent pure insanity. Common law clearly has the benefit of much lower level of logical reasoning required by its judges, which allows a legal system to make do with a bunch of idiots, who otherwise would all make totally arbitrary insane judgements. Common law systems can even be easily established where there isn't even any codified laws to begin with, it just works itself out.
Of course common law is much less likely to be affected by political shifts or change in governments (Germany 1930s).
One small correction. Common law is practiced in 49 of the 50 United States. Louisiana practices civil law because of its history as a French colony. In this case, the common law doctrine is found on Justice Clarence Thomas' license plate. His license plate reads (or read when he visited my law school in 1996) Res Ipsa. That is short for Res Ipsa Loquitur or "the thing itself speaks." It is a way to hold someone liable for an accident without requiring the plaintiff to prove exactly how the defendant was negligent. This doctrine holds that if an accident, more likely than not, would not have happened without negligence and the defendant had control of the premises or the object that caused the accident, the defendant would be liable.
On the other hand, If a case is codified by law, the plaintiff can get shafted.
In Europe - in pure civil law - we would call the thing you described under Res Ipsa Loquitur in 2 ways. 1st, since it would be a way of being liable without the need to prove negligence or any other type of fault (like intent), we would say it's *objective liability.* Liability that does not require any kind of fault to be proven, but only the fact that damage has occurred, that it is within the bounds of the substance of objective liability (which mostly is specified by a code) and the nexus between the occurred damage and the conduct that falls within the scope of objective liability. 2nd for the latter part, where it says that if it was more likely than not to incorporate negligence, then this is sufficient to establish liability - such thing is called an *irrefutable legal presumption* - something that is by law regarded to be true/false even if it is highly unlikely that it is true, and even the proof of the presumption being wrong does not make its legal effect void. The basic Latin ignoratio iuris non excusat - not knowing the law does not excuse / not knowing the law is not for the benefit, is such an irrefutable legal presumption. Meaning, even if you were to prove that you didn't know all the codes that apply in a given situation, it can not be an excuse before the court of law.
@@rexi1414 In the United States, certain activities or situations confer "strict liability," in which it doesn't matter whether the defendant was negligent. Negligence is defined as the breach of a duty of care. But if, for instance, you are blasting on your property and that blasting causes damages to someone else property, you will be strictly liable even if you can prove you were as careful as humanly possible. But under Res Ipsa Loquitur, there is only a rebuttable presumption of liability. Even if a type of accident usually only occurs because of negligence, if you can prove it wasn't caused by negligence in the instant case, you can avoid liability. In the case in the video, if the department store could prove that a trespasser had thrown the tile off the roof (assuming it wasn't considered negligence not to have prevented the trespass) the store wouldn't be liable.
Louisiana indeed operates under a civil law system, which is unique among the U.S. states. This is due to its history as a French and Spanish colony before it became part of the United States. Louisiana's legal system is based on the Napoleonic Code, and in this state, statutes and codified laws are primary, with less emphasis on judicial precedents, which contrasts with the common law tradition that governs the other 49 states. The doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur is an excellent example of how common law principles are applied in the U.S. This doctrine allows a plaintiff to establish a presumption of negligence without having to prove the specific act of negligence. Essentially, if an accident is of the type that ordinarily would not occur without negligence and the defendant had exclusive control over whatever caused the accident, Res Ipsa Loquitur allows the court to infer negligence on the part of the defendant. In courts that follow common law principles, such as those in 49 states, Res Ipsa Loquitur shifts the burden to the defendant to prove that there was no negligence. The doctrine is especially useful in cases where the plaintiff may not have access to the specific facts surrounding the defendant's conduct, such as in medical malpractice cases or certain types of accidents. The reference to Justice Clarence Thomas’s license plate reading "Res Ipsa" underscores his awareness and perhaps his appreciation of the doctrine's significance in common law. It’s a witty nod to a foundational concept that’s well-known among legal professionals and law students.
@@ZdenekMicke69 I attended Washington & Lee Law School in Lexington, VA between 1995 and 1998. Lexington is a "city" with a permanent population of only 5,000 people. However, it does have two universities. In addition to W&L, it is also home to the Virginia Military Institute. VMI is a state school that was only open to men until 1997. In 1996, the Supreme Court ruled in a 7 - 1 decision that VMI had to allow women to enroll. Clarence Thomas did not participate in the case because his son was a cadet at the time. As I understood it, Justice Thomas' Corvette, with his Res Ipsa license plate, was often seen in Lexington while the Justice was visiting his son. Justice Thomas came to speak at W&L during my second year. His talk was sponsored by the Federalist Society. Being the president of the W&L chapter, I got to speak with him at the reception prior to his talk. At one point, he mentioned that with so little to do in Lexington, we must all do quite a lot of studying. I was reasonably sure that was meant to be a humorous statement because the one thing Lexington had no shortage of was alcohol. Students at the law school did quite a lot of drinking, though we were practically teetotalers in comparison to the undergraduates.
this video is amazing and really helpful ! I love the format
In France both are in use. Except common law is called "la jurice prudence". It is when the law in the first place fails to fairly judge the situation the case is taken, in a higher court and examined and is balanced if it is right or wrong. And if it is the fault of the defender it becomes a common law.
Above all, it is an unofficial source of law. Indeed, the judge will never explicitly base himself on a previous decision, as the French Civil Code forbids this (art. 5). A judge's decision cannot, therefore, settle the fate of a legal question in the future, and in principle applies only to the case judged. Nevertheless, it is the role of the supreme courts to standardize case law in order to avoid disparities between the judgments and rulings of lower courts in a given matter.
For example, the solution adopted by the "Cour de cassation" (Supreme Criminal Court) in one case does not oblige appeal courts and tribunals to rule identically in similar cases. However, the fact remains that the rulings of the Cour de cassation, and particularly those published in the Bulletin des Arrêts, mark a trend that is generally followed by the lower courts to avoid a proliferation of appeals and, in particular, appeals to the Supreme Court. This is what we call "jurisprudence".
Unlike common law systems, where past judicial decisions can set binding precedents for future cases, jurisprudence in France serves as an influential but unofficial source of law. French judges are prohibited by Article 5 of the Civil Code from explicitly basing their decisions on previous rulings, meaning that each case is judged on its individual merits. While lower courts are not legally bound to follow the decisions of higher courts like the Cour de cassation (the Supreme Criminal Court), these rulings do play a significant role in guiding the decisions of lower courts. The trend set by the Cour de cassation is often followed to ensure consistency across the legal system and to reduce the number of appeals that could otherwise clog the judicial process. Even though jurisprudence does not have the binding authority it holds in common law systems, it still serves as a powerful force in shaping the interpretation and application of law. The practice of following the decisions of higher courts, particularly those published in the Bulletin des Arrêts, helps maintain a level of uniformity in the legal system. The use of jurisprudence also allows for the law to be interpreted in ways that can adapt to specific circumstances, particularly when the written law might not fully address the complexities of a case. This helps achieve a more equitable outcome, which is a central concern in any legal system.
Jurisprudence in France represents a nuanced approach where past judicial decisions influence, but do not dictate, future rulings. This allows for flexibility and adaptability within the civil law system while maintaining a degree of consistency and fairness in the application of the law.
Awwwwn I'm from Ghana. Thank you very much. I've learnt a lot.
i'm from Ghana and we practice common law
always a new thing to learn.
The Philippines uses a hybrid of civil and common law as a result of colonizations by both Spain and the United States. One region in Mindanao predominantly populated with Muslims adopted elements of Islamic law, especially family and financial law.
The civil law tradition in the Philippines primarily stems from its history as a Spanish colony (1521-1898). During this period, Spanish legal codes, based on the Napoleonic Code, were implemented, forming the foundation of many areas of Philippine law, particularly in matters like family law, property, and obligations. After the Spanish-American War, the Philippines became a U.S. territory (1898-1946). During this time, the American common law system significantly influenced the country's legal structure, particularly in areas like constitutional law, criminal law, and procedural rules. The U.S. model of judicial review and the doctrine of stare decisis (the principle of adhering to precedent) were also adopted.
In the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), Islamic law, or Sharia, is applied in matters related to personal and family law, such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and certain financial transactions. The application of Sharia in these areas reflects the region's predominantly Muslim population and respects their religious and cultural practices. The Philippine legal system includes Sharia District and Circuit Courts that handle cases involving Muslim Filipinos, particularly in the areas where Islamic law is recognized. These courts operate alongside the regular court system and are integrated into the broader judicial framework of the country.
The Philippine legal system is a fascinating hybrid, combining elements of civil law from Spain, common law from the United States, and Islamic law in certain regions. This combination reflects the country's diverse cultural and historical influences, creating a legal system that is both complex and adaptable to the needs of its varied population.
Common law system is more complicated and it has different sources of law such as common law rules, equity rules , customs , precedents. Even legal scholars and researchers face difficulty in their job as they have to derive the doctrines and principles from cases. Civil law system is more systematic and methodological which ease the way for judges to decide cases as there are codes which govern the cases.
Because it is precedent-based, the 'thinking' in common law decisions tends to be more consistent overall, without the abrupt reversals or changes in direction that can sometimes happen in French and German courts. Common law judgements tend to come through (or be dismissed) more quickly as well. This is why common law is generally regarded to be more business friendly, as companies can sue each other while having a good idea of what the outcome will be before they go to court (or, conversely, decide to arbitrate instead). All of the traditional global 'business hubs' are consequently common law locations: London, Hong Kong, New York, Singapore, etc.
An additional benefit of common law is that it is more independent of the government, being a sequence of cases decided in a 'bottom-up' fashion by different court decisions. This is why it is generally associated with more democratic countries, whereas 'top-down' civil law has been more effectively used in authoritarian ones (the state or party chairman simply handing down new codes for judges to follow). Those common law countries which became more authoritarian after independence from Britain often chose to discard certain protections of the common law (e.g., Singapore abolishing jury trials in 1970), or move over to civil law entirely. Juries, specifically, are a great 'bottom-up' protection of the common people, because 12 'peers' (average citizens) are likely to acquit a defendant whom they feel is being condemned by a single judge who has been appointed (or bribed) by the government (this is fairly typical in countries with high levels of corruption). 12 individuals selected at random are far harder to 'buy out' than a single corrupt judge.
What you are saying may be true in general and from a global perspective, but I am Swedish and my country is not known for a dictatorial culture. Rather, our legal culture as pretty much the rest of our society is highly bureaucratic in the sense that law is mostly regarded as a "technique" rather than an art.
The jury system is another feature of the common law which in some senses is different. I like that system and my country has a weird mixture of jury and jury-rule. I can also see clear disadvantages with the American jury system, but I would prefer to have your system of selecting a jury, combined with a mandatory legal education (say a month or two) of members of the jury. All membes should be recruited, trained and paid fo in advance.
Having that said what I love about the common law system is the consistency of the legal rulings in civil cases.
@@thabomuso2575The system in America is not American, it’s adopted from another country. It’s called “English Common Law” for a reason.
@@darkmatter6714 the American legal system is still American in the national sense, although it originates from another country. Just like Roman law,, also known as the inquisitorial system, is used in various countries.
Also, the English common law system is not based on a legislated constitution, while the American legal system is both based on a constitutuion as well as federalism. Also, the American legal system excluded all forms of rithgs and obligations fo a nobility and a monarch that didn't exist, while until recently, the British legal system did just that.
Every legal system is unique in some form.
From VietNam i agree 100%
@@thabomuso2575 Not sure about rights for monarchs. Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law. It sought to prevent the king from exploiting his power, and placed limits of royal authority by establishing law as a power in itself. You have a copy of it in the Capitol as US values of freedoms and liberties were modelled after it. I wouldn’t call 1215 “recent”.
Civil law is better, because you can look it up, you can also look up cases, where the law was applied, so Civil Law has both, but it is more likely follow trends, which could not be said about the Common Law. For example in Germany, where the jewish rules were applied, it was much easier to adapt to those, then it would be in the US, where the precedents could not let something like that happen all of the sudden. At the end it all comes down to one thing: common sense and good will. If a german judge got those, he or she would not apply the jewish rules, or any rule, which was lacking the 2 mentioned above. So my point is civil law+common sense+good will is as close to perfection as law can get.
Thank you Sprout
So as I understand it the difference is who makes the law: a politician in civil law and a judge in common law...
I Lives in Pakistan and Civil laws are being practiced here. With the exception of common law essestials were also added.
Love your style!!
No, no, no. This description is nice but way oversimplified. First of all, civil law does indeed rely on legal precedents. Conversely, common law does rely on legislated legal text. Withou legal texts, the judges would effectively ""think up" law as they work with each case, and that would be as from a Kafka-novel.
Written legal text increases exponentially every year, so the overall trend leans towards relying on that legal text more than the reasoning of judges. However, more legal text does not always simplify legal rulings. It often complicates the rulings and that is again, where we need the intelligence and prudence of judges to get fair rulings.
What is also forgotten in this video presentation is that for a legal precedent to emerge, that precedent must first have been handled in lower courts. And those cases again, heavily rely on legal precedents.
The real difference between civil law and common law, is that in many cases, civil law systems, legal precedents may often be strong, but surely not as strong and absolutely binding as in common law countries.
Furthermore, common law systems in most legal cases rely a lot more on the legal reasonings of the judges based on legal principles and philosophies dating back to the Roman Empire. In civil law countries, the legal reasonings rely a lot more on what is found in the written legislated law and what is not written there. The attempts of the judges to "fill in the legal blank spaces", so to speak, are mostly fewer.
In my opinion and I work with law in a civil law country, common law has historically been a superior system overall. In modern times, written legal text is increasingly the main source for legal reasoning but the common law system is still by far the superior method.
After everything has been said and done, it is the human brain of an intelligent judge that has the best chance of making a fair ruling. Legal interpretation is an art, not a science, and not even artificial intelligence will chance that.
outstanding analysis
Thanks. I could go further into this topic but I explained the very basics.@@张博-o8u
I am from europe and always found the US system strange. it seems you have the same right as someone else in the same case and the same right to compensation. could it be that the principle is inflating over time and the compensation for strange cases gets out of hand? to me everybody is yelling “i will sue you” and whants to get money out of the system. Is this because of the type of system or not?
Yeah, so weird. So if someone got it wrong 200 years ago, they have to keep making the same mistake forever! 🤦
I'm sorry but your interpretation is incorrect. Firstly, civil Common Law is about harms done to a person that are not crimes. Secondly, common law is an Adversarial code of law. There is always a Claimant who makes the claim of being harmed by another who they name and that other becomes the Defendant. Everyone has the right to make a claim or defend themselves against a claim as long as the law allows. In civil law, the claim is made to the court, and if accepted both the claimant and defendant appear before the court. The claimant pleads their claim with evidence supporting their claim, and the defendant defends themself, arguing against against the claims. And the Judge, sometimes in limited cases, with the assistance of a jury, decides the case. As we are talking about real life, de jure (legal) rights are not always de facto (in reality) rights. Why? Money and politics. The civil cases that come to the public attention are those that have very rich people or corporations suing each other. They have the money to afford lawyers and court fees. In reality, civil wrongs are common place occurrences that rarely see the courtroom. Most are settled before they go to trial. Or, never get into the system because claimants can't afford to pursue their claims. Or, administrative courts are created to process claims in bulk. And wealthy people or corporations have influence over legislators. The real difference between common law and civil law is about the source of legal rules for judges. Civil Law jurisdictions codify their all sources, whereas Common Law jurisdictions rely on codified and uncodified sources for the sources of legal rules. It is in flexibility and responsiveness to community needs this plays out. Civil Law needs the code to be updated to reflect changes, whereas Common Law jurisdictions can change on the fly as long as it doesn't subvert statute law, and there is a majority consensus that the change is justified.
European civil law system is THE Worst!
Simple explanation, every pleading side is nominally under submission of Greater legal authority (codified under set of laws) so this is regulatory centred decision making. Justice depending solely of quality deciphering sometimes senseless and contradicting codes of law.
This system sprung out of French reformation of civil rights, and I'm my opinion opened very wide space for oppression, wrong judging (targeted in someone's favor or others misfortune), shunt of any sense of justice on longer runs.
@@BigHenFor Common law's treatment of civil wrongs revolves around the concept of torts, where harm caused by one party to another is addressed through remedies, primarily monetary compensation. Examples include negligence, defamation, and trespass. As you correctly state, common law operates in an adversarial framework. A claimant initiates the process, the defendant responds, and both present evidence and arguments. The court (judge or jury) determines the outcome based on presented facts and legal principles. It’s true that litigation can be prohibitively expensive, limiting access to justice for many. Wealthy individuals or corporations often dominate civil proceedings because they can afford the high costs of legal representation and court fees. A significant number of civil cases are resolved outside court through settlements or alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as arbitration or mediation. Administrative courts help handle bulk claims, but these are not a perfect solution.
In civil law systems, claims are also made to the court. However, the emphasis lies on interpreting codified rules that are designed to cover a broad range of potential disputes. Judges have less discretion compared to their common law counterparts. Civil law jurisdictions often adopt an inquisitorial system, where the judge takes a more active role in investigating facts and applying the law. This contrasts with the adversarial nature of common law. Codified procedures and reliance on written submissions in civil law systems can sometimes make legal processes more predictable and less costly, although they, too, face issues of inequality and access.
Both common law and civil law systems aim to deliver justice, but they do so in distinct ways based on their historical and philosophical foundations. The common law system’s flexibility allows it to adapt quickly to changing societal contexts, but this can come at the cost of predictability and accessibility. Conversely, civil law provides clarity through codification but may lack the agility to address rapid changes without legislative intervention.
The interplay between codified stability and judicial flexibility remains a central theme in understanding the strengths and limitations of these systems. Each faces challenges in ensuring equitable access to justice, especially in a world shaped by economic disparities and political influence.
explained case law, which is a part feature of common law ..
now, I need to reconsider.. if these same issues happen to the other videos , which I like them.
Would be great to know what occurs when the situation is unprecedented for common law
Common law is a law made by the judge or its called as unwritten law hence the judicial precedent is using in terms of judge-made law
Malaysia 🇲🇾 legal framework is based on UK legal systems of common law but incorporates Syariah laws for Muslims. There is also customary law in Borneo serving the natives. Indians and Chinese customary laws have been codified during reformation of Family and Marriage Act. Not an expert, just sharing.
Malaysia's legal system is rooted in the common law tradition, inherited from its time as a British colony. This influence is most evident in the country’s civil and criminal laws, as well as its judicial system. The principle of stare decisis (adherence to precedent) and the structure of the courts are modeled after the UK system.
Syariah law is applicable to Muslims in Malaysia, particularly in matters of personal status, family law, and religious observances. Each state in Malaysia has its own Syariah courts that operate separately from the civil courts, handling issues like marriage, divorce, inheritance, and apostasy among Muslims. This creates a dual legal system where civil courts and Syariah courts coexist. However, Syariah courts have jurisdiction only over Muslims and specific matters, while the civil courts handle other areas of law.
In the states of Sabah and Sarawak on the island of Borneo, customary laws play an important role in governing the indigenous peoples, or "natives." These customary laws are recognized and upheld in native courts, which handle matters such as land rights, inheritance, and local customs.
Native customary rights are particularly significant in land disputes, where the ancestral land rights of indigenous communities are protected by these customary laws.
Malaysia's reformation of the Family and Marriage Act involved codifying certain customary practices of the Indian and Chinese communities. These codifications ensure that cultural practices are respected within the legal framework, particularly in areas like marriage, divorce, and family obligations.
For example, Hindu marriage customs and Chinese ancestral inheritance practices are recognized and have been integrated into the formal legal system to provide consistency and legal clarity.
Malaysia's legal system is a multifaceted and inclusive framework that integrates common law principles with Syariah law for Muslims, customary laws for indigenous peoples in Borneo, and codified customary laws for its Indian and Chinese communities. This legal pluralism reflects Malaysia's diverse population and its efforts to respect and preserve the cultural and religious practices of its people within a unified legal structure.
Common Law and Case Law are NOT the same thing. In the US, case law was not used until after 1898 thanks to the members at Harvard.
According to the video, common law bases its decision on similar cases that occurred in the past.
What if there are no cases similar to the case on hand; how would the judge handle it?
stupidity... that's how cops keep getting off with crimes
We have one law world wide. That's just don't hurt anyone all the rest are for the corporate system not the man or women.
Bill of rights 1689 stands in perpetuity.
We been programmed through a preponderance of sophistry from the people we trust to act for us!
A corporate can not own land nor properties neither can they prejudice the people nor place fines fixtures or forfeiture. Only buy our tacit acquiescence.
I think there is some blending, and some jumps in explaining this because there finite things.
common law in the court case, the judge mostly looks at if the presented claim has happened in the past, but it isn't like they actively go looking for it usually the prosecution or plaintiff will present that claim. part of this is why a judge under common law isn't required to actually know anything about the law itself. however, by being knowledgeable they can better render judgement and stop renegade trains of thought. the laws still have some codification, but the use of common law is mostly in the decision of Guilt and for the exacting of fines, fees, and punishment. in a civil case, usually, stare decisis is in the acutal court trial.
for common law a civil court will be heard by a judge, who will render a summary judgement as apart of the process. summary judgements use stare decisis, however the primary use is in the latter part of the court at trial stage where information collected during discovery is examined and debated over. for the less informed this process is:
>filing
>answering, the complaint
>discovery
>motion
>out of court resolution/summary judgement
>trial
>appeal (repeating the filing for a higher court).
stare decisis is used in summary judgement and trial portions as the judge is deciding something. Providing that information prior can help the process, but isn't strictly necessary.
as far as I know, in civil law, the judge acts partially as a lawyer as they must match a claim to a law after a clear intent has been provided. beyond this I don't know.
Judges often rely on precedents (past decisions) presented by the parties involved. While judges aren’t required to know every law, their legal knowledge helps them interpret and apply the law effectively. In civil cases, the process you outlined is accurate. Stare decisis is crucial during summary judgments and trials, ensuring consistency and predictability in legal decisions.
In civil law systems, judges have a more active role in investigating the facts and applying the law. They often act as both fact-finders and legal experts, ensuring that the claim matches the relevant laws.
Common law is based upon the idea of a universal law of do no harm. It is above man made law
Yes, and it's not really used much in US as we've adopted an unconstitutional form of Statutory Law which subverts the will of the People and allows debt as money!
This is an oversimplification but it is still correct. Precedent is not irrelevant in civil law it’s just non binding. Depending on the civil law legal system the importance of precedent can vary.
Interesting and thanks. I am not a lawyer, but I have read that because of the odd history of the US there are mixtures in the various states, California has some of the Spanish legal system, Louisiana has some French legal system, and Massachusetts has Cannon Law (I think) mixed in. So the TV series, 'Boston Legal,' in reality is probably more complex than the on-screen behavior suggested. Isn't Harvard located in Boston?
California has elements of Spanish civil law due to its history as a Spanish colony.
Louisiana is heavily influenced by French civil law, stemming from its time as a French territory.
Massachusetts and other states have been influenced by various legal traditions, though Canon Law (church law) isn’t a primary influence in Massachusetts.
As for Harvard University, it is indeed located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which is just across the Charles River from Boston. So, the legal complexities in a place like Boston would certainly be more intricate than what a TV show like “Boston Legal” might portray!
It's also a religious divide. Common Law countries tend tend to have religious foundations rooted in Protestantism and outside of UK largely in Calvinist traditions, although England and Ireland are both high church they are common law, England has a High Church Anglicanism, and Ireland has High Church Roman Catholicism, they still have been influenced by Calvinist originated Protestantism. However due to the influences of High Church religions, they still have influences of Community based solutions i.e. Social Safety nets. However most other areas have Calvinist traditions, whereas Civil Law (Mainland Europe and Latin America) countries tend to have ones rooted in Catholicism. In the case of the Protestant areas of the mainland they tend to be high church such as Lutherans so very close to Catholics in their worldview of communal Laws i.e. Sweden, Germany, many also have Catholic populations such as Calvinist Nethetlands or Switzerland having large influential Catholic areas, and/or are 50/50 Lutheran/Catholic Germany, Calvinist/Catholic Netherlands, Switzerland, etc. , and since it's easier to have one law, Civil Law become the precedent regardless of other tendencies. Islands like the British Isles allowed more spread of Common Law and colonial areas outside of Quebec, Louisiana, and Latin America, were largely opened up to new settlers with Low Church Protestantism. We see this even in North America, English speaking Canada, and USA have full Common Law, whereas Quebec, Louisiana, and Mexico have influences of Civil Law or Full Civil Law. Again the safety net of most Commonwealth areas is due to Anglican, Catholic (Quebec), and Methodist influences that focus on societal duties. The individual and individuals are the basis in Common Law, whereas in Civil Law the society and polity is the basis. This also defines economics, the individualist tendencies lead to more Free Market economics, individual rights over community harmony/norms, and less social safety nets as duties fall on individuals rather than on society. Whereas for Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants like Lutherans, duties tend to be more focused on society as a solving agent, and thus societal duties is more the goal. Thus you see lots of Social Safety Nets in Lutheran and Roman Catholic nations. In Asia the already existing idea of Social Harmony and Cohesion, rooted in Confucianism, opened the the door to European Civil Law being modified and adopted. Such as Japan where German and French Civil Law was adopted and modified. All in all the religious foundational views of society influence the legal outlook even if they become secular. Overall The US, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, English speaking Canada, have had enormous influence from Calvinist thought, even if they have had comprises. The USA is the most Low Church Protestant oriented nation of the West, even if it has a large Roman Catholic and High Church Protestant population. The individual vs community responsibility issue is one rooted in Low Church vs High Church traditions in the West, or a compromise of the two tencendencies and hybrid. Again the US is the most Low Church oriented Western country, largely due to it's early Puritan foundations.
Common Law: Originated in England and spread to its colonies. It relies heavily on judicial precedents and is prevalent in countries like the USA, Canada (excluding Quebec), Australia, and New Zealand.
Civil Law: Rooted in Roman law and prevalent in continental Europe and Latin America. It is codified and relies more on written statutes than judicial decisions.
Protestantism: Particularly Calvinist traditions, have influenced Common Law countries, emphasizing individual responsibility and free-market economics.
Catholicism and High Church Protestantism: These traditions, prevalent in Civil Law countries, emphasize community responsibility and social safety nets.
Europe: Civil Law dominates, with countries like Germany and Sweden having strong Lutheran influences, while others like France and Italy are predominantly Catholic.
North America: The USA and English-speaking Canada follow Common Law, while Quebec and Louisiana have Civil Law influences.
Asia: Countries like Japan have adopted and modified European Civil Law, integrating it with local traditions of social harmony rooted in Confucianism.
Hi, please tell me which software is used to creat these kinda videos. I love them😍😍 And I'd like to learn🙏🙏🙏
How can someone participate in your work, and be part of your team?
Email us
Common law is built upon wisdom of learning from past cases and acts within the interests and well being of the individual.
Both, case and civil laws are part of the legal system.
Indonesia use civil law and they are get confused with too much regulations.
Some of them wonder to have a common law. unfortunately, it looks complicated too.
Awesome video
Thanks!
I live in Pakistan where the law is basically civil law but is actually based completely upon British common law except for some Islamic Laws
COMMON LAW GANG GANG
GOOD MORNING USA I HAVE A FEELING THIS IS GOING TO BE A WONDERFUL DAY
In the post-capitalist, corporatism, oligarchic societies that we live in, it doesn't really matter in the end. As long as there are people that are above the law, Democracy can't function and the Rule of law affects only the common folk.
am from civil law .in my opinion, civil law codification way is the best way which is more reliable.
A canon of civil law must cover a whole lot of ground if the judge is to find an answer there. Essentially, they would have to have a law, rule or regulation for EVERYTHING.in order to find an answer to the legal challenge. The decision can have variable outcomes because of how a particular judge views that canon.
In common law, the judge must FIRST consider what violation of law, rule or regulation potentially took place. Then precedents apply. However, we may not have a precedent or the precedent may have been annulled by later high court decisions. Then, the judge would have to turn to the plain reading of the law and what mischief the law was intended to address.
Finally, the judge may ignore the past precedent based on the individual case and set a new precedent. Good example was overturning Roe v Wade...
Our Founders knew about this when they settled on our system (US)...
> The decision can have variable outcomes because of how a particular judge views that canon.
Sure. The losing party then can then usually appeal to next higher court. There is a lot of standing precedent in the continental system as well, except that you are not bound by decisions not in your hierarchy. Judges and attorneys of course can and do take inspirations from other cases, but unless some higher level has settled the matter, the judge can rely on their own best judgement.
And it's really easy to cover everything in civil law: Adult people can make contracts, which have to then be followed. That covers most everything. Of course there are then protective clauses, like when an expert sells to a lay person or when you sell online. There are also default clauses meaning if certain things are not explicitly covered in the contract that is how it's done.
The case in the example is a case of negligence. They cite Art 838 BGB, which is rather specific, because the defendent is not the owner of property, but the tenant. This is another case of specialization in the BGB. I'm sure you can guess at the general one for negligence.
And I'd say overturning Roe vs Wade is an horrific example, except that this is more a failure of the legislative that was unwilling or unable to make a law.
You forget the civil law system has jurisprudence which are the interpretations of the supreme court to specific cases and then you have protection law (similar to habeas corpus) where you can sue against the sentence of a judge who did not consider such interpretations to a particular case or violated the constitution or human rights.
What if there’s no precedent
Then one is set.
In Canada it's a mix.
Legal and illegal are two side of a criminal syndication.
I don't think that you should be asking US which one is better.
most of us haven't studied law or history well enough to have an educated enough opinion on the matter.
the strengths and flaws of both of these systems may not be apparent on first glance.
does any of these systems affect political corruption with any way?
the civil law sounds like a receipe for corruption since there are essentially multyple laws that people need to be aware of.
I laugh where they say that they have no jurisdiction, and brushes it off on another, then brush it off to lawyers, j7st to justify that it's not a state matter, but a federal matter, but then states it's a civil matter. Federal government seashell games the big government plays and lies.
The people are guaranteed Due process of law and it must proceed according to the course of the common law and NOT by statutes.
I thought the two legal systems were wealthy and poor.
Сіз көшеде дүкенге бару үшін келе жатырсыз, кенеттен басыңызға бір шатырдың тақтайшасы түседі.
“Бұл нені білдіреді?” - деп өзіңізден сұрайсыз және тақтайшасы құлаған сауда үйіне кіріп, шағымдануға барасыз. Сауда үйінің иесі сіздің басыңызға түскен бақытсыздыққа қызығушылық танытпайды да, бұл қалай болғанын түсіндіре алмайтынын айтады. Әрине, сіз де сол тақтайшаның дәл басыңызға қалай түскенін білмейсіз - бірақ…
0:34
Сізде миыңыз шайқалған соң, адвокатқа барып, сотқа шағым түсіресіз.
0:41
Одан кейін не болатыны - бұл оқиғаның Азаматтық құқық қолданылатын елде ме, әлде Жалпы құқық қолданылатын елде ме болғанына байланысты.
0:49
Өзіңіз тұратын елде қай құқық жүйесі қолданылады, білесіз бе?
Континенттік еуропалық құқықтық жүйе
0:57
Айталық, бұл жағдай сізге Германияда болды, ол ел Континенттік құқықтық жүйеге жатады.
1:06
Судья сіздің ісіңізді қалай бағалайды?
1:10
Ол сіздің ісіңізге сәйкес келетін заң нормасын іздейді.
1:14
Германияның Азаматтық кодексінде, 838-бапта, ғимарат иесі құрылымды сақтау керек екені және ғимараттың бөлшектері құлағанда келтірілген зиянға жауапты екені туралы жалпы ереже бар.
1:20
Судья заңды қарайды.
1:25
Ол айыпталушының шынымен де ғимарат иесі екендігін, заң бойынша ғимаратты сақтауға міндетті екенін және оның абайсыздық танытқанын тексереді
1:40
Егер барлық заңдық талаптар орындалса, сауда үйінің иесі жауапкершілік көтереді, ал
1:46
сіз, яғни заңдық іс қозғаған талапкер, болған оқиғадан туындаған зиян үшін өтемақы аласыз.
Ағылшын-американдық құқық жүйесі
1:55
Егер сіз өз серуеніңізді Америка Құрама Штаттарында жасасаңыз, онда ол Ағылшын-американдық құқық жүйесіне жататын Жалпы құқық жүйесі, судья басқа түрде әрекет етеді.
2:06
АҚШ-та судья орнына ұқсас істі іздейді - мысалы, ағылшын
Thanks
Both systems are terrible. Civil Law requires a specific or at least abstract law to determine the case, but it means that if something doesn't have a clear prevision then a judge might make far stretches to cover the law. Meanwhile the Common Law goes based on what was decided on in the past, which becomes a problem with certain laws, where essentially because precedence wasn't set, now you can't set precedence because you need precedence to rule that way. A catch 22 if you would.
A mixture of both could work. Where you initially check Civil Law, then you check the Common Law. And if they are opposed, then you go based on which is more clear about the ruling for this type of situation. For example, if the law says "In an Accident where DUI's are issued, then the driver must pay for the damages they inflict" then one could argue someone swerving out of the way of a drunk driver is responsible for the damages they caused. But if there is a case which sets the precedent "If a driver swerves in an attempt to protect themselves or others and the other driver is at fault, then the at fault driver will pay for any damages related the the person who swerved" then the case would override the precedent of the law, as the case directly addresses the issue, while the law would only broadly cover the concepts for the case.
Of course that legal system would require a lot of fine tuning, and determining when whether Laws and Past judgements would get picked over the other. So I could see this as being hard to implement.
Insightful!
Most Civil Law Systems in Europe are mixed
Oh my gosh, you know I had travel miles just to get help, which took weeks but the task was a pain in a half, iowa is so stupid, our own police don't care about our health or others who cause issue, even child abuse is ignored, the land lords get away with half of faults which if your a tenant is not protected from their bad job of keeping units safe, my own freezing, unless I report it which take forever after the hurt, I pay my rent and they come without notice and hurts me and my animals which are service animals, in which was neglected, the only law is arresting someone no other protection, so stupid!! So if I am kicked out the usually times of these is 30 to 60 days, take that with this and a court hearing after I am homeless is horrible, I reported to the city of such acts and argue about two years of not sleeping due to these and other issues and it takes more then a simply sheet compare to travel and etc, I said if these are not done to the city on their fault then court is final if not agree abound the actions from this and thats how it goes, iowa legal aide suck too since I had ask for help on such things.
If I worked my hind in off to purchase a home and paid it off I don't think some body can just come in and change the rules for their personal gain
The Bar aka (British accountancy registeris) they run 193 countries
2:36 The difference is that civil law is for *CIVILized countries* 😜
Why can't we do both? There is a way of doing jurisdiction that analyses the concrete case and applies the mentioned subsumption together with the comparison of previous similar cases, forming a jurisprudence. That's a way to provide a more stable system of justice. Of course, doing that in a big country like mine (Brazil) is far from easy. But considering the complexity that involves the variety of people and circumstances here, it is a suitable way to achieve a judicial provision.
Same here in 🇨🇦
merciiii
In the Philippines, we follow both the civil law ( Civil Code if the Philippines) and the doctrine of stare decisis( jurisprudence) in the application of laws.
I live in U.S. so we have Common Law. I don't always agree with this type of law because I know that every situation has its differences. I do NOT believe in this D.I.E. ( D.E.I. to those who adhere, thinking themselves god-like!), so I don't believe that ANY justice should be determined by inclusion of skin color, gender ( unless it's an obvious case of male physical dominant violence), sexual orientation, or ethnicity. If you are a biological, adult human, then the same rules apply. So, to this I would say that Civil Law seems very basic and identifiable. Variables might apply but they have to apply within the legal structure established.
Thanks
make a video about skizofrenia or machiavellianism
Yes!!.. and/or one on Niccolò Machiavelli
My country has a mixed legal system which is a perfect combination of civil and common legal systems 😅😅😅😅
Common law sounds terrifying
If it was an actual roof tile i think you wouldn’t get up anymore
common law is better in the demonstrated case.. you don't need to prove the defends negligence. like the way the civil do,if it means so, which requires a tones of papers stored, checked, and verified.
Nation states ran by public servants could benefit from understanding the laws in which their predecessors wrote.
The arrest of the Samourai wallet developer for illicit funds and money laundering appears to be nothing more than an attack on Bitcoin itself, as the software developer has nothing to do with how Bitcoin users choose to use their software.
This action raises concerns about the potential for governments to target developers of cryptocurrency software under the guise of combating illicit activities. It's important to recognize that software developers are not responsible for how users choose to utilize their software, and holding them accountable for the actions of users sets a dangerous precedent for technology development and innovation.
Rather than targeting developers, efforts should focus on educating users about legal and ethical practices when using cryptocurrencies and ensuring that regulations are fair and proportionate. This incident underscores the need for greater clarity and fairness in the regulation of cryptocurrencies to protect both developers and users.
What can one expect from the ones whom uses bananas to measure things
I prefer civil is the best to judge..
But... I think this skips over how a Common Law system incorporates (or fails to) new laws passed by the government - which inherently based on generalities, like Civil Law.
Or is it a case that all 'Common Law' systems are actually hybrid Common/Civil Law systems?
Thanks
Why can't freedom of speech allow us to be vocal in a court of law.
Is our Judiciary still in the dark middle ages?
1) Why should we all rise when the Judge enters?
2) Why are we not allowed to speak out of turn?
3) Why can't we raise our voice against the judiciary?
4) Why can't we use verbal profanities against a judge/lawyer in a court of law?
Even if there are laws against this, why should we follow them? Shouldn't it be a personal choice?
5) Are these laws out-dated?
6) Can we have these rules thrown out?
7) Perjury should be allowed as a part of freedom of speech and considered as a form of personal expression.
8) Why can't we sue the judiciary? Isn't it unfair?
9) Why do our judiciary set an environment of intimidation.
10) People should enter a court of law without fear or the feeling of intimidation.
Corpus Juris-diction, AUSTRALIA.
The common law explanation is soooo wrong. Common law is based on maxims of law, common law is customs and tradition. You are talking about case law, which is derived from statute cases (most of the time). With common law you don't need case law, only a first hand eye witness to an injury or breached explicit contract.
The "green" wins! It's the ancient Roman Rights based system, that is applied here in Italy. Our dense history has given the world the guidelines for modern Rights. This doesn't happen in "the Queen's" countries. But you decide 😂😂😂
But I think that neither civil law nor common law come up clearly. Judicial cases are used in civil law very often as a sourt of right.
Jedi are on the right
Sith are on the left
Here I'm stuck in the middle
Well then, what if, in a common law practicing country, a similar case could not be found? 🤔
then that is the time, judge to form a new case law, by assessing the cause the continuity of the consuqence, she get hit, to the action and responsibility of property owner.
Brazil. Civil Law.
Clearly there are problem with both. I'm watching this video because I'm outraged about some rich people having to pay their ex $73K in child support. Just because someone other judge started doing it means it's not common law. At the same time, Civil Law is just fruit cake where the Judge acts as investigator, which is clearly biased to the point of outrage. Civil Law is whatever the Judge wants to do. I've heard that it's better to have a predictable yet more unfair legal system than fair and unpredictable.
i live in aus i think they use common law
Nope... Common law is not about judging things off the past. It's simply based off two rules
1. Do whatever you agreed through a contract
2. Don't enforce things up on others, such as killing or stealing.
This video is more anti American propaganda.
"Civil" law is corrupt and designed to be complex so that the ruling class can continue to break common law.
👏 you are absolutely correct 😊 I see someone been doing their homework 😂😂😂 ❤
India has a mixed system
Edit: plz correct if I am wrong.
The Philippines has a civil law. If the Philippines applies common law (also called judge-made law in the US), it could easily be abused. 🙂
In America... I don't think it's either.
Bull shit. In spain and in Russia where I both live, the experiences for a lawyer will cause your bankruptcy. Moreover, if the building belongs to an official, you will land yourself in jail and then prison. Better to ignore the incident and move on than to face charges and find yourself in debt of criminal charges or even police tortures. Especially in spain
I think that commed law is better
Dito
Common law
Wrong assumption about deciding based on previous rulings because those rulings were made on proof of liability of one man damaging another man. Common or Natural or more correctly called God's Law determines if it was intentional vs if it was accidental. Intentional damages or harm is difficult to determine since it requires the reading the mind/intent of the man doing the damage/harm. If there is a claim that he didn't "intend" to damage or harm it's an accident and he must pay to return the property damaged to it's original condition but in the case of a personal assault type of damage, the damaged party determines the form and amount of means to return to the original condition. If the two parties can't come to an agreement, it's up to a jury in a suit at law to determine. Statutory law is nothing more than business codes and regulations based on every imaginable scenario where one party can or does deny responsibility but still has to prove it. In God's Law a man is innocent until proven otherwise. Cops use statutes to deprive a man of his right to be innocent until proven guilty when he makes a claim against the man as simple of going over the posted speed for commercial vehicles to obey. A man, going to meet his fellow man for church is "assembling" which is his right from God and therefore can not be a statutory violation without breaking God's Law.
"No legal system can claim to be a servant of the people if it enables those who harm the people to conceal themselves under the cover of the law and receive advantages that harm the people." - Dr. Hans Frank, "The Impact of National Socialist Thinking on the German Legal System" (1934)
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
This is very bad taste because i am a victim of falling bricks
Civil for the win
res ipsa :)
Simple answer; we do not live in a legal society, there is no rule of law. If someone from another country hurts you, and they are a diplomat.... they always get off for free no charge, no crime at all... that is THE LAW!!! THEY ARE THE LAW!!!!
Okay crazy
Indonesia using civil low for the legacy of colonializm